5 ms·
Except when you steal a car, the owner doesn't have it anymore. If you would manage to clone a car and then resell it for a fraction of its price, it would mean
by xnzakg 11y ago
Except when you steal a car, the owner doesn't have it anymore. If you would manage to clone a car and then resell it for a fraction of its price, it would mean the car industry is broken.
- dash2 11y agoIf the price of a movie were composed out of the cost of the materials for the DVD, this argument would be correct. But the price is needed to compensate the people who made the movie. (I don't say that current movie pricing is equitable.) Content creators deserve to be paid for their work. Taking it without payment and without their agreement is stealing.
- _lce0 11y ago> Content creators deserve to be paid for their work. Taking it without payment and without their agreement is stealing. I wonder how much Hollywood share its revenue with the content creators, not actors but more like writers, filmmakers, and all those that _create_. are there numbers somewhere? EDIT: s/studios/filmmakers -- thanks icebraining!
- icebraining 11y agoHow much does Hollywood share with studios? Which Hollywood are you referring to?
- Tactic 11y agoI agree this car analogy is flawed because it correlates a movie to a car as if they are both goods. Media is actually a service (a recorded performance). This not only causes this analogy to break down but your underlying argument that because the owner still has a copy it is therefore acceptable.
- kedean 11y agoOk, lets say I instead decide I don't like how companies sell their cars, so I 'protest' by stealing a copy of the schematics for the new 2016 model of some car. I construct and sell them for the price of materials, meaning I make no profit from them. Many people who wouldn't have paid 100k for the car now get the car for much cheaper. I'm robin hood now, right?